Mr, Mrs, Dr…Why have titles?

It is evident that along with the collapse of so many aspects of Western Society from the mid twentieth century onwards, we have witnessed a general casualisation of the way we refer to other people; that is, using their title. Whereas one would always refer to another man or woman as Mr., Mrs., or Miss followed by their surname, these courtesies are now more often than not pushed aside for exclusive first name usage from the introductory meeting. Even those who are entitled to the use of specific religious and academic titles such as Sister, Father or Doctor are more commonly introducing themselves as Susan or Ralph.

Perhaps the last domain where honorific titles are still commonly used is the school classroom. The hands of children are shot up in the air with an accompanying “Sir” or “Miss”. There are however plenty of academics that would like to see the old titles dropped in favour of first names. One of the reasons for this is around the level of disparity between the titles ‘Sir’ and ‘Miss’. It is said that ‘Sir’ began its usage in 16th century England where male teachers of a lower social standing were needing to assert their authority among largely upper class pupils. ‘Miss’ on the other hand is reflective of the late Victorian era when the majority of women teachers were young and unmarried, giving up work once they did marry. The issue of teacher titles then is often spun around the issue of discrimination against women which coincided in the 20th century with the title Ms. as a default term for the address of women without labelling them as single, married or otherwise.

Perhaps one can sympathise with the call in some quarters then to simply drop titles and refer to everyone across the board by their first name. After all this is the age of equality. We might validly ask if titles really offer us anything of value in our modern and adult society. Admittedly, it is not as easy as it once was to use titles. Once upon a time you knew that a male and female couple living in the same house were married with the same surname, but you’d be taking a great risk to assume that now. Titles have been rendered even more bizarre recently with the official introduction of Mx. for those who wish to indicate that their gender is ‘indeterminate’. In fact Australian government departments are currently in the process of responding to new policies where official forms must allow a person to describe themselves using a term that they are “most comfortable with”. However, the stupidity of allowing a person to identify themselves by whatever ‘gender’ appeals to them at that moment in time is something to be more fully discussed in another article.

So while titles can get all mixed up in the battles of political correctness, I do think that misses the deeper point. The most basic titles are a way to show respect to another person. Titles work on the premise that there is a certain mystique around each person we meet. Why are we all forced to be equally close with the butcher as we are with our brother? Our names are the fundamental identity of who we are and a title acts as a sort of veil reminding each of us that the name of another person is to be treated with dignity. Titles also recognise that we contribute differently to the societal fabric, a man is not like a woman, a woman is not like a man. A doctor does not serve the same function as a priest or a nun. Holding to the foundational notion that all people are equal does not mean we all have to be the same. This is the great problem we have today, we think that equality has to equal sameness.

Especially in the egalitarian nation of Australia, the informality with which we communicate with one other is palpable. Not only are we satisfied to use a person’s first name but we will even choose a nickname for a person we are meeting for the first time! I have introduced myself as Bernard to people before and the next sentence out of their mouth is, ‘pleased to meet you Bernie’. I’m sorry…what?!

I am not necessarily advocating a return to the era of Downton Abbey, but I do prefer a society that respects each of us for who we are and a society that doesn’t assume that we are all the same as everybody else. Titles may seem small and insignificant but they are one pleasant aspect of a cultural heritage that in too many places has slipped away.

Copyright 2016, Bernard Toutounji

Bernard Toutounji

Bernard Toutounji

Bernard Toutounji is an Australian Catholic writer and speaker. He writes a fortnightly column called Foolish Wisdom (www.foolishwisdom.com) which examines afresh issues within news, culture or faith. One of Bernard’s favourite quotes comes from Edith Stein who said "All those who seek truth seek God whether this is clear to them or not". Bernard is married to Jane and they have two daughters.

Leave a Replay

5 thoughts on “Mr, Mrs, Dr…Why have titles?”

  1. Great article.
    I think another reason for the near-universal use of Christian/first names is that adults have become infantilized. It’s particularly galling in the health care field to hear a teenage shop assistant or nursing aide address a 90 year old (without invitiation) by his/her Christian name.
    “Ms” is a classic example of an imposed supposed “solution” to a supposed problem, having the exact opposite effect to that intended. It didn’t get rid of the “problem” of strangers knowing whether a woman is married. (Though why this should be a problem I don’t know.) Now the stranger divides unknown women into 3 classifications instead of 2. Starngers assume that a women who chooses to be called “Ms” is very sensitive about the topic of her marital status, probably a divorcee or spinster who is very angry about the fact.

    1. And calling people by their Christian names without invitation (or when you don’t even know them) is to treat them with great disrespect. As well as often causing confusion.

  2. As Dr. Richard Weaver notes in “Ideas Have Consequences,” the loss of titles and honorifics is underlaid by a loss of the hierarchy which they represent:

    “If sentiment endures, there will be real names and even honorifics. For the good of all, prerogative will attach to higher functions, and this will mean hierarchy. But hierarchy requires a common assumption about ends, and that is why the competing ideologies of our age produce confusion….

    The attack upon the symbolic operations of language by positivists is only part of the general attack upon symbolism under way ever since it was widely agreed that there is but one world and that it is the world which is apparent to the senses. The logic is unexceptionable; since the symbol is a bridge to the other, the ‘‘ideational’’ world, those who wish to confine themselves to experience must oppose symbolism. In fact, the whole tendency of empiricism and democracy in speech, dress, and manners has been toward a plainness which is without symbolic significance. The power of symbolism is greatly feared by those who wish to expel from life all that is nonracional in the sense of being nonutilitarían, as witness the attack of Jacobins upon crowns, cassocks, and flags. As semanticists wish to plane the tropes off language, so do reformers of this persuasion wish to remove the superfluous from dress. It is worth recalling how the French Revolution simplified the dress of the Western world….

    The same tendency is manifesting itself in the decay of honorifics. To the modern mind there is something so artificial and so offensive in titles of any kind that even “doctor” and “professor” arc being dropped, though the military services cling grimly to their titles of rank. (There is a further lesson to he drawn from the fact that practitioners of the applied science of medicine have been allowed to keep theirs.) Honorifics are often mere flummery, to be sure, but one must not overlook the truth that they represent an effort to distinguish between men and men of parts. When not abused, they are an explicit recognition of distinction and hierarchy, a recognition that cannot be dispensed with where highly organized effort is required. The impulse to disorganize succeeds where it makes dress and The Power of the Word language stand for just what is before us and not for transcendental attributes or past attainments— makes us sec people in an instant of time, as docs the camera.” (pp. 36, 159-161)

  3. Great article Bernard!!
    Sadly, now 6 short years later, the “slippery slope” is in and the use of pro-nouns out of control. Further eroding virtues in society.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Sign up for our Newsletter

Click edit button to change this text. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit